The figure is meaningless on its own, and the post creates some false significance by trying to extrapolate the success of Twitter from it. Clearly if 40% of se

The figure is meaningless on its own, and the post creates some false significance by trying to extrapolate the success of Twitter from it. Clearly if 40% of several million account signups use your service regularly, you're still doing alright, even if your median usage is low, and that's excluding the impact of hits rather than contributions. This is made worse by the fact that the Harvard Business Review blog article quoted and linked (http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/cs/2009/06/new_twitter_research_men_follo.html http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/cs/2009/06/new_twitter_rese...) actually provides decent reasoning for this behaviour - that Twitter is largely used as many-to-one publishing platform, and as such should be compared to the amount of posts-to-signups that blog hosts get, and I suspect it compares favourably. The HBR article itself is pretty good and quite interesting about the real-life usage of Twitter - just don't try and make conclusions about the success of Twitter from it.